Grading Has Clouded Our Minds...

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by RayBShotz

Great thread.

I agree totally with the idea that an O?C card should be graded and slabbed as O/C if that's what the PSA standards call for.

To grade a MINT card NRMT (9 to a 7) is disingenuous and flat out incorrect.
I wish they never allowed "no qualifiers" selectability by the customer.
RayB

Yeah, but remember grading standards for Mint - Poor in somewhat decent detail existed before professional grading. It was less precise then, but it is logical that bad centering being the "only" problem with a card will lower the grade. It stands to reason then, that an otherwise Mint 9 card with centering slightly outside the 65/35 standard would be NM-MT. This is how grading worked for at least 2 decades (by those who did it properly...) before PSA decided to invent qualifiers. It's not "incorrect."

[JollyElm]

I found myself looking through some 1972 high numbers and realized an odd pattern was seeming to emerge, so here's a brand new episode. Let's call it Biting Off Morgan You Can Chew...

(These cards were randomly placed in two rows, so there is no underlying rhyme or reason to the layout. As always...no cheating!!)

Pictured here is an octet of 1972 Joe Morgan Traded cards. Each and every one of them has (at least) one side getting pretty chummy with a border. They are quite similar in that specific regard, and all of them have been graded as either a straight PSA 8 or PSA 9, except one - only one - which got an OC qualifier. Which one is it?

Which card is NOT a part of a Well-Oiled (Big Red) Machine??




(The top row contains cards #1, 2, 3, 4 and the bottom row has cards #5, 6, 7, 8.)

Chime in. Let's have some fun!!